At 9/24/2014 10:14:04 AM, Installgentoo wrote:As I see it there are two components of evolution: one, that all life descended from common ancestors.

Two, that random genetic variations selected over millions of years are responsible for the diversity of life today.

I see strong evidence for the first component, but none for the second. Am I wrong?

The second statement is true if you accept the first one. The only way two species can have a common ancestor, is if that ancestor suffered changes on its DNA. The only known natural way to change DNA, is through mutations. Moreover, evolution through random mutations of the genetic code has been observed in ring-species, the lizards of pod-mrcaru, and others.

At 9/24/2014 10:14:04 AM, Installgentoo wrote:As I see it there are two components of evolution: one, that all life descended from common ancestors.

Two, that random genetic variations selected over millions of years are responsible for the diversity of life today.

They are inseparable:

if all life has a common ancestor, it has to happen over genetic variation selected over distinct periods of time. Genetics is what separates species from one another and genus from one another and kingdoms from one another. There simply couldn't be any talk of common ancestors unless we had a compressed geneflow.

At 9/24/2014 10:14:04 AM, Installgentoo wrote:As I see it there are two components of evolution: one, that all life descended from common ancestors.

Two, that random genetic variations selected over millions of years are responsible for the diversity of life today.

I see strong evidence for the first component, but none for the second. Am I wrong?

Your right. But the thing is, the variations in evolution are not random. Random is just standing still one day and changing. You have to go through something in order to evolve.

Installgentoo phrased the statement correctly; genetic variations (mutations) are random and evolutionary biology generally treats them as such. Selection of traits is actually also stochastic (fancy word for random), but non-arbitrary -- traits which provide a benefit to fitness are more likely to be passed on given the framework of natural selection, but nature doesn't deterministically select beneficial traits for reproduction.

Nature does not "care" or purposefully decide which traits created by mutation will ultimately stick around and which ones will be discarded quickly, or slowly for that matter. Only those traits which are advantageous in a given environment, at a given time will have the chance of being passed on to future generations. This is the law of natural selection. Any trait which incurs even the smallest of advantages, be it speed, strength, color, size, immunity or any other countless variations caused by a mutational process will, over time, accumulate and grow within a species because those with the trait will have the greatest chance of passing their genes on to future generations. Eventually, all within that group or species will have the trait. Until or unless changes in environment render it less than an optimal trait and another mutational trait supplants it, over time. Take the cheetah for example, every time a small mutation occurred in the species which was even slightly advantageous to increased speed meant that particular animal had a slightly greater chance of survival through increased hunting success. Over time, those with the trait were more likely to survive and pass that gene to the next generation. Nature did not care whether that mutation was beneficial or not, it simply allowed the process to run its course, for the good or the bad. Most mutations are of course not beneficial and hence typically are discarded by natural selection.

Anyone that states they have never witnessed or seen proof of evolution are either naive or not well read on the topic. First of all, one does not witness anything that occurs slowly over the course of tens of thousands and even millions of years. Secondly, the study of events which occur over these periods of time from the past is built upon the work of countless individuals and disciplines that are slowly pieced together and analyzed. One must read and research extensively on these various findings to gain a foothold of knowledge on what is being discovered and debated. Ever so slowly the picture comes into focus, and it seems safe to say that the portrait of evolution, though far from complete, is now outlined and some color is exposed. There is little doubt about what is being portrayed, the details need only be finished. I am sure there are still some hidden surprises in this portrait, but none that will alter the theme in front of us now.

I often read posts from creationist and or religious posters that state evolution is poorly recorded in the fossil record because of so few (some of them claim no) transitional types, the so called missing links between species divergence. This is a rather absurd argument, based upon a lack of understanding on the principle of of evolution. These types often ask why there is never a fossil which is half bird, half reptile for example. They clearly do not understand the underlying concept. I go back to the classic example of a human baby being born, growing to become a child, than an adolescent, then a teenager, and then a young adult until finally they are a mature adult and then an older adult and finally an aged adult at the end of their cycle. Suppose you record on video this entire process of aging for that baby from birth to death. Every single minute of their entire life. At what frame in the movie do you say stop and say here is the moment of adolescence, here the the moment of adulthood and so on. The change is always gradual, and there is no one frame or moment that distinguishes a transition, but clearly transitions occur throughout the life of this person. To ask which frame marked the event of change from one stage or transition to another is not a viable question. No frame alone can lay claim to being "the" moment of transition. Cumulatively, the process does occur however. Evolution is like this. There would never be a single creature or fossil that was "the one", or the "missing link", it is always a gradual process of evolution that does not produce what the creationists ask for, a smoking gun per se, where we find a fossil which is half bird and half reptile. There are fossils which clearly show transitional stages, such as the ones found where dinosaur type types have developed feathers as an example, but remember the movie of the human growth story, there is never a single marked frame that was THE one which marked a change between transitions.

At 9/24/2014 10:14:04 AM, Installgentoo wrote:As I see it there are two components of evolution: one, that all life descended from common ancestors.

Two, that random genetic variations selected over millions of years are responsible for the diversity of life today.

I see strong evidence for the first component, ...

Well, not quite, in my opinion. There's strong evidence for common cause, but no particular evidence that the common cause is 'descent with modification'. River rock in most any river will show similar shaping, but that doesn't mean they came from any common origin, just from a similar cause.

At 9/24/2014 10:14:04 AM, Installgentoo wrote:As I see it there are two components of evolution: one, that all life descended from common ancestors.

Two, that random genetic variations selected over millions of years are responsible for the diversity of life today.

I see strong evidence for the first component, but none for the second. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong.

Unfortunatley, the reason Creationists think this, is because they have convinced themselves apriori that they have the right answer, regardless of what evidence can or can't be presented.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you do not feel the evidence is compelling, because the combined sum of ALL evidence in the relevant fields disagree with a beleif that you have already decided is true regardless of anything anyone has to say on the subject.

Using your belief to interpret the evidence, rather than interpreting the evidence to form your belief is why there is so much in the way of lies, dishonesty, distortion and the fact that not a single creationist I have ever interacted with or heard has EVER been able to explain what evolution is, and portray the evidence with any semblence of honesty.

This post is case in point, you know what the evidence is, it has been presented innumerable times; there are hundreds of thousands of research papers on the subject, and it has convinced the overwhelming majority of the scientific community in the relevant fields and most of those who do not have such an apriori assumption that they are right before they start.

You don't care about the evidence; you care about the evidence that agrees with you; and I am pretty sure you will seize upon every single last study that casts doubt on some minor aspect of evolution, yet ignore the hundreds of thousands of studies that show how it works, and provides ample evidence of the fact of evolution and then opine about how ludicrus evolution is as if somehow your single line statements about how wrong it is has evaded every single scientist that has worked in the field.

This is not about evidence; and it never was not for 150 years at least. This whole Evolution-Creation "Debate" is simply a rhetorical exercise for creationists to SOUND as if they have a case, when in reality, they have no such thing.

At 9/24/2014 10:14:04 AM, Installgentoo wrote:As I see it there are two components of evolution: one, that all life descended from common ancestors.

Two, that random genetic variations selected over millions of years are responsible for the diversity of life today.

I see strong evidence for the first component, ...

Well, not quite, in my opinion. There's strong evidence for common cause, but no particular evidence that the common cause is 'descent with modification'. River rock in most any river will show similar shaping, but that doesn't mean they came from any common origin, just from a similar cause.

And yet water, sand, earth and rock on rivers, have all the same origin.

This is not about evidence; and it never was not for 150 years at least. ...

I think you're more right than you know. Darwin is a socio/political/religious theory more than science. That may or may not be what Darwin had in mind, but it's certainly why the inescapably nonsensical theory has had such box office success.

This is not about evidence; and it never was not for 150 years at least. ...

I think you're more right than you know. Creationism is a socio/political/religious theory more than science. That may or may not be what Darwin had in mind, but it's certainly why the inescapably nonsensical theory has had such box office success.

Fixed it for you.

Evolution is scientific. It is backed up with evidence, tests, predictions (that have almost all been shown to be true), can be demonstrated, and matches up with reality.

Creationism, however, is not scientific, it is religious in that it is based on a book that we know is wrong; it is socio political; in that all attempts to attack evolution are political in nature, using courts, schools, and political office to further your point of view; rather than actually providing any sort of evidene that it's wrong.

Take for example, yourself, ALL you do, is sit here and type about how evolution is wrong. You talk about how it makes no sense, and how it doesn't match reality. You deliberately misquote to make your arguments sound better, you are deliberately dishonest when you repeatedly say "there is no evidence of...." when you very well that there is evidence that is used to support evolution.

Rather than attack the science, and chose to demonstrate one of the 50 things you could demonstrate that would disprove evolution outright, you argue under the approach that "If science doesn't know everything about evolution, it can't know anything", and when you're arguing in support of your position; any tiny peice of evidence you can pull from anywhere that is consistent with your point of view automatically means that all the evidence that isn't can be rejected.

The reason is simple, when you know you're right, regardless of what the evidence can or can't show; it doesn't matter what I or others can show to be true; it's automatically wrong.

I'll issue a challenge to you.

Lets say for the sake of argument now that you're wrong; and the science on the subject of evolution and geology are correct.

a) What evidence would it take to convince you that you are wrong;b) What evidence would it take to convince you that the science is correct?

I can gaurentee that your answer(s) will fall into one of the following categories:

- Evidence that, even though the science is correct, cannot possibly be provided due to it's nature or the time required.

- Evidence that is inconsistent and incompatible with the science showing your lack of understanding of the science itself.

- Evidence that is already available and demonstrable.

In all likelihood, those answers are generally only going to be an attempt on your part to sound rational, because you and I both know that the answer to both those questions are "Nothing".

This is not about evidence; and it never was not for 150 years at least. ...

I think you're more right than you know. Creationism is a socio/political/religious theory more than science. That may or may not be what Darwin had in mind, but it's certainly why the inescapably nonsensical theory has had such box office success.

Fixed it for you.

Evolution is scientific. It is backed up with evidence, tests, predictions (that have almost all been shown to be true), can be demonstrated,

No, it absolutely cannot be demonstrated. To 'demonstrate' would be to evolve something. If I demonstrated how sugar goes into solution, I would be putting some sugar into solution. That's what demonstrate means.

So not only has evolution obviously never been demonstrated (it takes millions of years, you see), it's never been observed, either (it takes millions of years, you see).

So, sure, technically evolution IS about evidence, but it's most certainly not about the scientific method.

This is not about evidence; and it never was not for 150 years at least. ...

I think you're more right than you know. Creationism is a socio/political/religious theory more than science. That may or may not be what Darwin had in mind, but it's certainly why the inescapably nonsensical theory has had such box office success.

Fixed it for you.

Evolution is scientific. It is backed up with evidence, tests, predictions (that have almost all been shown to be true), can be demonstrated,

No, it absolutely cannot be demonstrated. To 'demonstrate' would be to evolve something. If I demonstrated how sugar goes into solution, I would be putting some sugar into solution. That's what demonstrate means.

So not only has evolution obviously never been demonstrated (it takes millions of years, you see), it's never been observed, either (it takes millions of years, you see).

So, sure, technically evolution IS about evidence, but it's most certainly not about the scientific method.

You are running under the absolutely false pretense that everything has to be physically seen and directly observed to be demonstratebly true.

This is not about evidence; and it never was not for 150 years at least. ...

I think you're more right than you know. Creationism is a socio/political/religious theory more than science. That may or may not be what Darwin had in mind, but it's certainly why the inescapably nonsensical theory has had such box office success.

Fixed it for you.

Evolution is scientific. It is backed up with evidence, tests, predictions (that have almost all been shown to be true), can be demonstrated,

No, it absolutely cannot be demonstrated. To 'demonstrate' would be to evolve something. If I demonstrated how sugar goes into solution, I would be putting some sugar into solution. That's what demonstrate means.

So not only has evolution obviously never been demonstrated (it takes millions of years, you see), it's never been observed, either (it takes millions of years, you see).

So, sure, technically evolution IS about evidence, but it's most certainly not about the scientific method.

Wrong, wrong, and... Wrong. I'm sure you would like irrefutable proof that you're wrong to be gently spoon fed to you in the clearest of terms, but you would only spit it out right away-- "Casting pearls before swine..." and all that sort of thing. Besides, most people only have so much spare time in their day to spend on the wilfully ignorant, if any at all.

I suggest that you begin with reality itself, then truly learning what the scientific method is, then finding sites on the Internet that are compatible with both of those. Speaking of demonstrations, try demonstrating that you are able to learn something new. You have yet to show anything resembling science literacy, that's for sure...

"If you say you pray to God, that makes you normal. But if you say you pray to God through your hair dryer, you are clearly a lunatic. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive."
-Sam Harris

At 9/24/2014 10:14:04 AM, Installgentoo wrote:As I see it there are two components of evolution: one, that all life descended from common ancestors.

Two, that random genetic variations selected over millions of years are responsible for the diversity of life today.

I see strong evidence for the first component, but none for the second. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong.

Unfortunatley, the reason Creationists think this, is because they have convinced themselves apriori that they have the right answer, regardless of what evidence can or can't be presented.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you do not feel the evidence is compelling, because the combined sum of ALL evidence in the relevant fields disagree with a beleif that you have already decided is true regardless of anything anyone has to say on the subject.

Using your belief to interpret the evidence, rather than interpreting the evidence to form your belief is why there is so much in the way of lies, dishonesty, distortion and the fact that not a single creationist I have ever interacted with or heard has EVER been able to explain what evolution is, and portray the evidence with any semblence of honesty.

I would suggest you develop a larger group to converse with. While not a Christian myself, I know quite a few who went from an original disbelief in evolution to a current acceptance. A lengthy Gallup poll taken in 2005 found that among weekly church-goers 33% accepted evolution, while among those "believers" who seldom or never attended church the number rose to 71% (http://books.google.com...). It shouldn't be too hard to find a single individual in a crowd that large. Perhaps you have convinced yourself apriori?

This post is case in point, you know what the evidence is, it has been presented innumerable times; there are hundreds of thousands of research papers on the subject, and it has convinced the overwhelming majority of the scientific community in the relevant fields and most of those who do not have such an apriori assumption that they are right before they start.

You don't care about the evidence; you care about the evidence that agrees with you; and I am pretty sure you will seize upon every single last study that casts doubt on some minor aspect of evolution, yet ignore the hundreds of thousands of studies that show how it works, and provides ample evidence of the fact of evolution and then opine about how ludicrus evolution is as if somehow your single line statements about how wrong it is has evaded every single scientist that has worked in the field.

This is not about evidence; and it never was not for 150 years at least. This whole Evolution-Creation "Debate" is simply a rhetorical exercise for creationists to SOUND as if they have a case, when in reality, they have no such thing.